This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62021CO0761
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 31 March 2022.
St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
Appeal – EU trade mark – Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Request failing to demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed.
Case C-761/21 P.
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 31 March 2022.
St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
Appeal – EU trade mark – Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Request failing to demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed.
Case C-761/21 P.
Court reports – general
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2022:249
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 31 March 2022 – St. Hippolyt v EUIPO
(Case C‑761/21 P)
(Appeal – EU trade mark – Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Request failing to demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed)
|
1. |
Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a and 170b) (see para. 13) |
|
2. |
Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Request that an appeal be allowed to proceed – Formal requirements – Scope (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a and 170b) (see paras 14-16) |
|
3. |
Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to demonstrate that the issue is significant – Appeal not allowed to proceed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a(1) and 170b) (see paras 17, 19, 20) |
|
4. |
Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Not included (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 58(1) and 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a and 170b) (see para. 18) |
Operative part
|
1. |
The appeal is not allowed to proceed. |
|
2. |
St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH shall bear its own costs. |